If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I thought this morning was really good! Honestly I'll take this morning's chest high hollow northeast windswell over long period tropical garbage any day of the week.

Long period tropical is not garbage. But I would agree that a good NE is second only to a good tropical cyclone. Great pics! It was breaking that well at high tide? Today was a good day though, a lot better than I expected. I didn't get in until a little after noon at low tide, I'd call it thigh to stomach.

Yeah calling tropical groundswell garbage was not cool...it just seems like the beaches around here don't really break well with swell periods over 14 seconds. Those pics were shot at mid-tide outgoing...seems like we are blessed with good sand bars this summer...it tends to break through high and low tide with any swell over waist high.

Those pics look perfect. It was flat as a lake up here. Lucky bastards. Yeah short sand bars don't react well with swell 13 seconds or over. Head north boys where it's rocky.....or do a lot of looking around and maybe find a bar that can handle it.

On a more serious note, I'm all for people living as close as they want to the beachfront BUT not when the cost gets bucked to taxpayers like myself. One thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the issue of FEMA subsidizing insurance for flood prone areas. I think it was talked about in the Sandy thread though.

I had to check my facts on Wikipedia but basically what happened in the 50s is that insurance companies stopped insuring homes on the coast and flood plains because they were losing money. Eventually, however, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created by the government to provide flood insurance for those in flood prone areas. The NFIP was supposed to be self-sufficient but they donít charge the full rate they should because a lot of homeowners canít afford it. They keep running up huge deficits and borrowing from the Treasury to keep solvent.

So taxpayers pay for people, rich and poor, to be able to live on the coast. Thatís the real issue. It doesnít matter what size house you have. If you live on the coast you should be paying insurance based on the real costs and risks of living there.

You bring up a good point. But what about all the folks on the Mississippi and its tributaries that get flooded out every so often. They get bailed out if they have flood insurance, and eat it if they don't. If you live in Arizona you pay to subsidize it. But if there is a fire in Arizona who pays for the firefighters and the insurance subsidies? We do. So maybe a national catastrophe insurance fund is in order. It sounds communist though. So what happens when the too big to fail interests - the re-insurers, the banks, the underwriters - get left holding the bag on a big hit (financial or weather related catastrophe)? Who pays then. We do - the taxpayers who have no direct vested interest. But it is all interconnected, so maybe a national cat fund is in order. Just wondering.

it's pretty pathetic & hypocritical that you're advocating the culling of sharks to prevent attacks when you want to turn my home into a nature preserve.

Do you really think his foot would still be attached with a white shark attack? Just saying. Maybe a test bite. First attack in 30 years. How many did a certain area of Australia have just last few years alone? 5 fatalities or so. Really no comparison and the fact that you think NJ currently is big time gw shark attack risk shows incredible ignorance. Just look at the statistics. Last fatality was 1916 and millions are in the ocean vs very few people in central cali for example, which has had multiple fatalities the past couple of years.

It's pathetic that you value the life of a few dead fish over a human being. Truly sick. I find your viewpoint disgusting.

You live oceanfront? I said to turn the oceanfront into a nature preserve and not even all of it. Just a lot of it. The immediate coastal area's are too developed. I see nothing wrong with that. Somebody bitten in half is dead or maimed for life. A little different than you having to move a block or two. Get over yourself.

So, what about people that live in the Mid West and have tornado damage? Screw em, right? Or when there's an earthquake in Cali, screw them too? Forest fires? Let them suffer too?
What happens when you have insurance and you've been paying for 30 years (like my parents)? And then when it's time to collect because your home floods and they don't even cover half.
We have FEMA to help when we are in need... If you don't like it move somewhere else.

Originally Posted by pinkstink

I'm glad someone said it!

On a more serious note, I'm all for people living as close as they want to the beachfront BUT not when the cost gets bucked to taxpayers like myself. One thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the issue of FEMA subsidizing insurance for flood prone areas. I think it was talked about in the Sandy thread though.

I had to check my facts on Wikipedia but basically what happened in the 50s is that insurance companies stopped insuring homes on the coast and flood plains because they were losing money. Eventually, however, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created by the government to provide flood insurance for those in flood prone areas. The NFIP was supposed to be self-sufficient but they donít charge the full rate they should because a lot of homeowners canít afford it. They keep running up huge deficits and borrowing from the Treasury to keep solvent.

So taxpayers pay for people, rich and poor, to be able to live on the coast. Thatís the real issue. It doesnít matter what size house you have. If you live on the coast you should be paying insurance based on the real costs and risks of living there.